Apparently there is a consensus (apart from those who dissent and are therefore crackpot or oil shills by default). But here's why I don't trust that consensus or more to the point, the people who claim there is a consensus.

1. The boy named Paul who cried wolf
Eco-apocalyptician: someone who achieves fame/fortune/funding/political power by repeatedly making prediction of environmental catastrophe (using language at least as strong as that). To date, no eco-apocalyptician has been successful at making an accurate prediction. Previous examples include: global cooling, resource scarcity, population bomb, mass extinction, all supposed to destroy the world and civilisation before the millenium. Even when global warming started, Judgement Day was scheduled for the millenium. We remain curiously alive.

2. Lack of falsifiability
Having learnt from previous experience, eco-apocalypticians no longer make falsifiable predictions. Instead, they make predictions for every possible outcome. We're going to boil, we're going to freeze, we're going to have storms, we're going to have drought... Which one gets put about on a given day generally depends on what the weather is doing. No matter what happens, they can say they're right. Not science.

3. Tautological and downright absurd statements
We should be very afraid apparently because "The climate is changing". Well duh! That's what it does. That gets followed up by statements about "stopping climate change" (impossible) "stablising the climate" (impossible and downright ridiculous) "making a sustainable climate" (activists are motivated by the belief they can change the world but this is getting stupid) or my personal favourite "stopping climate chaos" (somebody give these people a maths lesson).

4. Politics of fear
Eco-apocalypticians work very hard to scare the crap out of us over this. The harder they try, the more sceptical I become. It falls into the category of "Follow me and I will save you from the enemy at the gates!" I don't trust people who try to scare me into supporting their political ambitions. It is mighty convenient for their purposes that global warming happens to cause a whole bunch of negative things, but never any positive things.

5. Affirmation of the consequent
The evidence for the anthropogenic cause? The fact that the climate is changing (changing temperatures, shrinking glaciers etc). This is affirmation of the consequent and frankly wreaks of dumbing down. After all, even the most simple minded people would grasp two picture that show a glacier is shrinking, so eco-apocalypticians, whose business is to spoon feed people just enough to make them support their cause, simply say that proves global warming, even though it proves nothing more than the glacier is shrinking, for whatever reason. Bad science.

6. Proof where none exists
There is no proof of global warming and there never will be. We cannot observe directly carbon dioxide from a car reflecting IR and causing through a chain of chaos the glacier to melt. We can only observe things and make a hypothesis to fit the observations. It will never be proven. Yet eco-apocalypticians spout hyperbole that global warming is more proven than gravity. Bad science.

7. Opportunism
Apparently before the Industrial Revolution there was never any flooding. There were no storms. There were no heat waves, no droughts. Because whenever one of these events happens, BAMM, the eco-apocalypticians are out in force talking about how this demonstrates the reality of global warming. Each event is caused by global warming apparently. As Jay says, it must be nice to live a life so unburdoned by reality.

8. Political posturing
Which major industrialised nation has reduced its emissions over the past couple of years despite economic growth? Surely it can't be the United States, but it is. The pariahs of the environment, the ones who refused to sign up to Kyoto. It is them who have reduced their emissions, while economically stagnant Europe continues to have its emissions skyrocketting.

9. Ban everything!
Don't leave your TV on. Don't drive. Don't fly. Don't eat meat. Don't eat anything that is not grown in the most inefficient way imaginable. Why do these people always want to ban things? Authoritarians! And why do they always want to tax things as well? The rise is fuel prices has done more than any ETS or carbon tax would have done to increase fuel costs. Yet it is only honourable if taxation is used. Because obviously taxation is an active measure done by the eco-apocalypticians themselves and so they can get that warm fuzzy feeling inside, knowing they have actually done something, regardless of how stupid it is.

10. Class war
Low cost flights are killing the environment. That's because only poor people cause global warming. Witness the victory of David Cameron in the local council elections last week. His gains were totally in the metropolitan areas, the realm of the middle class lovies. In harder areas such as the North, he failed miserably to make any gains. Why? Because in the North, the people there are far too worried about making ends meet tomorrow than they are about these metropolitan elitist issues. As Diane Abbott said, "What do you give the man who has everything? The luxury of concern over global warming." Interestingly enough, the lead eco-apocalypticians won't be affected in the least if Ryanair or EasyJet go away because they only fly British Airways or other premium airlines. It's easy to say we should end low cost flights when you have nothing to lose from their demise. And who cares about poor people anyway?

__________________
2 good 2 need 4 engines

Apart from 5 and 6, none of your points are about global warming, but about activists, alarmists, or whatever you want to call them.

As for point 5: the reason why the climate is currently warming (i.e. global warming) can be discussed (as can the causes, the seriousness, the need to take action or not), but global warming in itself can hardly be denied. The evidence (not proof, never proof, this is science) consists of a slightly higher number of elements than two pictures of a glacier.

And point 6: no proof, never proof. Evidence, truckloads of evidence. Global warming is real.

777 geek, perhaps try again, but this time make the distinction between global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming. Confusing (or mixing) those three only weakens the valid points in your rant (if I'm allowed to call it so).

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

From what I've read, my understanding is that warming is happening, and is only denied by those at one extreme end of the spectrum on the issue. The real debate is about why it is warming.

This is the 1st I've heard that Class War is a reason not to take global warming seriously.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Greenhouse blues; a tiny play.

A biology teacher.
One of his pupils.
Various other pupils (no lines)
Two invisible commentators.

A schoolroom somewhere in Europe in the nineteen sixties.

Teacher: The Carboniferous Age is named after the coal deposits which were formed during that time. Temperatures were much higher than they are today, so that even at the poles there was a climate which we would now call tropical. There was no ice, so sea levels were much higher than today, and large parts of the continents were submerged. Parts of these submerged areas were not constantly submerged; the water rose and receded again and again over thousands of years. Coastal marshes grew when the water was low enough, and then were submerged and silted over, which means that the organic matter was closed off from oxygen. Instead of rotting away, it became peat. And the silt deposits became clay.

Pupil (wondering whether next generations will have coal): It still happens today, doesn't it?

Teacher: Yes. In coastal areas with changing water levels you get alternating layers of peat and clay. But nowadays it happens only in a few special areas. In the Carboniferous Age it happened over vast tracts of the world. And it went on for millions of years. Later, long after the end of the Carboniferous Age, other sediments were deposited above it, and the high pressure converted the peat into coal and the clay into slate. So now we find, deep beneath the surface, alternating layers of coal and slate.

Pupil (worrying): Why doen't it happen on that scale today?

Teacher: Because the temperature went down, part of the sea froze, and most of the continents emerged from the sea. Only a small part is still submerged, which we call the continental shelf. Also, plant grow less vigorously now than in the Carboniferous Age, partly because of the lower temperatures -- a tropical wood is more lush than an arctic one -- and partly because there is less carbon dioxide, which plants need to grow.

Pupil (interested in spite of his worries): Why did the temperature go down?

Teacher: Because the carbon dioxide levels went down. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It is opaque to the infrared radiation from the ground, so if there are lots of carbon dioxide around, this radiation can't escape to space.

Pupil (trying to make sense of it): And where did the carbon dioxide go?

Teacher: It was removed from the atmosphere by plants, and not all of it was returned when the plants died. That's because not all of the dead material rotted away; part of it was converted to peat, and later on to coal.

Pupil (dismayed): But we burn the coal. Doesn't that mean that we are returning the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?

Teacher: Yes, of course. So the temperatures will rise a little.

Pupil (scared): Doesn't that mean, once we have used up all the coal, that we will be back with the climate of the Carboniferous Age? And that large parts of the continents will be under water?

Teacher: No, that won't happen anytime soon. Because we are not able to find and remove more than a tiny fraction of all the coal which was formed in the Carboniferous Age.

Pupil (reassured): I guess that's just as well.

Commentator one: The teacher, not being an economist, doesn't realize that when coal and oil get scarce, techniques to extract them will drastically improve. And the pupil, being thirteen years old, doesn't even know that the Sun is more luminous now than it was during the Carboniferous Age.

Commentator two: So it will get even hotter than the boy feared?

Commentator one: Oh, yes, indeed! There is a reason, you know, that life has removed all that carbon from the atmosphere. It's called homeostasis. Its akin to bailing water out of a ship to keep it floating. The Sun gets more and more luminous so life has to sequester more and more carbon to keep the planet inhabitable.

Commentator two: So eventually life will hit a brick wall.

Commentator one: It would have, even without humanity. You can't have life without carbon dioxide, and you can't lower the temperature by removing it, once there's nothing left to remove. Life would have had a few hundred million years left, max.

Commentator two: But now, it is likely to be even less, I assume?

Commentator one: When all the fossil fuel is gone, life on Earth will be gone.

Curtain.

Yeah, it seems to be one fairly long straw-mannish rant. Other than the occasional extremist, nobody's saying any of these things. Ban things? Not at all. But reducing emissions (including C02), sure, that's a worthwhile endeavour for its own sake.

Artificial market pressure can foster innovation where natural pressures don't exist or are insufficient. If we force industry to reduce emissions or else, then industry finally has incentive to fund research in fusion-to-hydrogen production despite the start-up costs.

It's pretty clear that the energy market won't willingly innovate.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

I know we have had this discussion before, but not everyone who believes in global warming is an "Eco-apocalyptician" (and I find that term offensive). Many, many serious scientists support these ideas too. Yes, it will not be shown with the rigourous proof of a lab experiment, but we only have one Earth to experiment on. And by the time there is "more definitive" proof, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is a fundamental problem when science and policy meet and there is no happy solution. Should we also have waited for experimental evidence of the bad effects of an all-out nuclear exchange before we took steps to control the use and spread of nuclear weapons?

I have long ago said my piece about global warming policy - most of the solutions proposed (energy conservation, alternative energy - including nuclear) are good ideas no matter the situation is with global warming. I'm not sure I understand the opposition.

If you have serious points to make about global warming, discuss them in the science forum. If you just want to bash people concerned about the environment, I'm not sure it is appropriate for this forum.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Do you have documentation to support this?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Maybe 'skyrocketing' is a bit of a stretch, since Europe´s emission climbed only 1.5% from 2002. And there´s no lack of will for improvements.

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

North America had an increase between 2001 and 2002 of 1.4%, according to this site,ending in an all-time high.
Europe had a 5.4% increase ... between 1973 and 2002.

EDIT: according to page 8 of this 167 page pdf, European Union (15 members) greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 were 2.9% lower than in 1990, but still higher than in 1994. CO2 only was slightly higher.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Am I right in the assumption that 777geek is Glom, who had a few threads about global warming already?

I think I read that in a thread about where has Glom gone?

Conservation of resources is not a bad thing, regardless of the cause.

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

You're not wrong. Check 777/Glom's profile.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Put very simply: the globe is warming, at least as far as our best 'objective' measurements are concerned...Precisely why and by how much, I don't pretend to know...But, IMO, GW is a reality. Too deny it is hopeless. Ask King Canute!

__________________
Kind regards

Pete Tattum

The plural of anecdote isn't data!

Okay, quick note: title should read: "10 reasons why I can't take global warming hype seriously." Amazing the difference one word can make.

I should perhaps explain more. In this country, we have incessant global warming hype. Just now, the BBC have started advertising for a new season on programs on "Climate Chaos" with a load of shots of death, destruction and all those other good things. Plus we have David Cameron doing his Iditerod stunt to placate the middle class lovies. Then we have LibDems being downright elitist on Question Time. We, in this country, are getting global warming apocalypse rammed down our throats all the time.

And it all sucks for the above reasons.

So it is mostly journalists, activists and politicians, which is why this thread is here not in General Science, but that does not excuse some scientists. After all, point one is about the repeated prediction of environmental catastrophe that failed to come true made by academics en masse. The boy Paul refers to Paul Erlich. The recent rise in hype, particularly in the build up to the local council elections is really beginning to grate.

That's the point. Causes can be discussed but you have activists and politicians (Iditerod Dave) and sometimes scientists themselves pointing to evidence of change and saying that justifies the hype.

We have statements that the subject of the hype is a proven fact, when we both agree that it cannot be proven in the way they say it is.

Well it is the latter one. Sorry for the confusion.

A couple of citations including one from the voice of the consensus himself


I'm not bashing people. I'm bashing the behaviour of people, specifically those who keep on hyping it with scare stories, generally with a view to effecting sweeping change, basically scaring people into doing what they say. Those include journalists, activists, politicians and some scientists.

__________________
2 good 2 need 4 engines

I'm all for the next ice-age. Let's WHANG into the nuclear age, denying CO2 emissions totally, and all other "greenhouse gasses," and launch our weather straight back to 19,000 B.C.

Don't blame me - I'm a skier!

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. A human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

I'm all for the next Carboniferous Age. Let the coastlines flood, forming lots of shallow inland seas with lots of submerged man-made structures.

Don't blame me - I'm a diver!

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

To deny it is hopeless, to try to stop it apparently is too as long as people confuse the message and the messenger as 777 geek seems to to.

__________________
And the "driving on the freeway on a scooter" analogy still holds true because the pilots are sitting in 7 to 30 ton aircraft o' doom and you are running around them in your very own Meatbody, Mark I. Beep, beep.
Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I have the answer to Global Warming....more volcanoes!!

RE: Mount Pinatubo - This very large stratospheric injection resulted in a reduction in the normal amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface by up to 5%. This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F), and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F). At the same time, the temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal, due to absorption of radiation by the aerosols. The stratospheric cloud from the eruption persisted in the atmosphere for three years after the eruption.

__________________
"It was a crime of passion! Not premeditated dentistry!"